You are on page 1of 2

July 10, 2007

Dear Mr. Fusco and Members of the Aurora Village Government,

I am in receipt of your letter of July 3, 2007.

From its contents it is apparent that there has been some misunderstanding as to
the specificity of my complaints, as most of them were not addressed.

To the point, my formal complaint of April 27, 2007 is not even acknowledged in
your letter.

To reiterate: construction, excavation, and earthmoving work was done at 331

Main Street without receiving village approval. My complaint is spelled out in the
enclosed document, dated April 27, 2007, and the follow up to it, dated June 7,
2007, which includes the specific village laws that appear to have been violated.

When will a determination be made regarding this specific complaint? This

matter remains unaddressed after almost 3 months.

You state that I have “four distinct complaints”. I disagree with this
interpretation and will explain why.

• Regarding the height of the house: I have no “position” regarding the

height of the house. That information has been established. Enclosed is
a document, signed by Doug Wood, dated June 5, 2006, declaring the
height of the house to be 35’ 6 ½”. That is why the applicants applied for
a height variance.

My concern is that the height variance granted by the Aurora ZBA came
with certain requirements and those requirements have not been met.

The variance was given based on the plans submitted to the ZBA. As
stated at the May 24, 2006, public hearing: “the front yard will be in-filled
to meet the front door of the house with no entry step.”

Pictures and drawings illustrated this agreement. Instead a retaining

wall, about 3 feet out from the front of the house was built and filled with
dirt. Also, there have been several steps constructed. Not only does the
construction of this wall, and those steps, not comply with the terms of the
ZBA variance, they were never seen or approved by the other village
According to the letter sent by the ZBA, dated June 6, 2006, “any change
in dimensions that affect these decisions will necessitate a return to this
board.” (Copy of letter is attached.)

My position is that by constructing this wall and steps, the owners do not
meet the requirements of the height variance that they received.

• In regard to the retaining wall on the north side, that was built extending
on to the property of 331 Main Street, I had hoped that the complaint that I
made on April 27, 2007, made clear that my concern was primarily that the
owners of 331 Main Street at that time – Wells College - had not pursued
or received any kind of village approval for construction, excavation, and
earthmoving on their property.

The wall that extends on to 331 Main Street is unapproved construction,

and as such, I believe, constitutes a violation of the law. (As do the
driveway and backyard excavation at 331 Main Street.)

• You wrote “regarding the foundation, Ms. Holland’s complaints appear to

me to be subjective.” My complaint here is that the new construction of
this ground floor/foundation at 327 Main Street was never approved by
any village body. My objection is a procedural one, and there is nothing
subjective about that. I have not commented on the “lay of the land” or
the “aesthetic look” of the ground floor/foundation as you said in your
letter. My complaint is simply that this is new construction, along with the
north side porch, that never went through official village process. Please
see my enclosed complaint of June 19, 2007.

• Your letter dated July 3 stated “Mr. Staley must order a work stop on this
addition immediately.” Meanwhile, as of today, July 10, work continues
on the addition. When will this stop work order be issued?


Laura Holland